User talk:Favonian/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Our Russian friend

I am no longer able to aide the editor, whatever must be done with him/her is out of my hands. Do as you wish with the article to maintain its integrity. Thanks for the work with it. See you around :) Keegan (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think, it's fair! Ok, man! Good luck! But you wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.6.246.125 (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

But I did not do it. This is a shared computer, owned by the University of South Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.253.4.163 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hence the polite disclaimer at the end of the warning. No offense intended. Favonian (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

almortian

please remove the images from Ali.they are highly offensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almortian (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This subject has come up several times in connection with articles about Ali and other religious figures. The consensus is to keep the images. You should have a look at the guidelines emphasizing that Wikipedia is not censored. Favonian (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know who wrote the original article?

VenomousConcept (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Click the 'history' tab and you can see who made what edits. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A truly fascinating discussion on which to spend an otherwise dull, sunny afternoon. Turns out that the oldest version contains neither dates, nor "behavior/behaviour" conflicts. Moving forward in the revision history, we find this one [1], which uses the American format. Could we consider the matter closed now? Please! Favonian (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RY

RE: this reversion. WP:RY does not apply to dates of the year articles. While I agree that semi-notable entries shouldn't be included in the days of the year articles, citing WP:RY as a reason for removal is not appropriate. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. I was looking for some appropriate lines of scripture to quote for DOY articles, but found none. Favonian (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Favonian! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 7, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete my pages

Hi Favonian, I have started 3 pages and they are very valid. Please check the 2 websites that I referenced. I am new to using wiki so please keep that in consideration. Please check http://www.evenelson.com, http://www.breakingrecordsmusic.com. Thank you Sincerely77 (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bal537 edits

User Bal537 is a vandal. He has trying hard to manipulate information.

There was a reference to Light Infantary which was added by this vandal into the Chamar Section.

Light Infantary consisted only of Mazhabis and Ramdasias (Weavers, Julahas)

This Vandal has also tried to manipulate Table "Ethnic groups, Social groups and tribes of the Punjab" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravinder121 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) has answered a similar diatribe of yours most eloquently on your talk page. And by the way, please remember to sign your messages! Favonian (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought two barnstars in one day was too good to be true. :( I'm not offended, in fact I only just noticed when I checked the history of my talk page. :) – B.hotep •talk• 14:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Move back to Eric of Pomerania

According to Wikipedia naming policy articles are to be located at the most commonly used name. Eric of Pomerania is never referred to as Eric 7 but invariably as Eric of Pomerania. This is like moving Gorm the Old to Gorm 1 or Magnus the Pious to Magnus 1st. Noone will search for Eric 7. The article has to be moved back.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on the article's talk page. Favonian (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing

No problem. Is Bal537 the problem here or not. Please know: I think it would be better to try to explain what is going on rather than continue to block the person. I think that wikipeida can be VERY confusing, and threatening messages being sent to him/her isn't helping. I'm lucky that I was able to understand wikipedia. I think what helped me out the most with wikipedia was that I was offered help with this link. I don't think it is fair if a user is confused with all of the policies and guidelines, and gets punished for not knowing what (s)he did wrong.--Cubs197 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell who is the bigger problem of the two combatants, but Bal537 has certainly received his share of warning including two blocks. Just for the record, I didn't do the blocking; can't in fact since I'm not an administrator. Thanks for the link! Favonian (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sure, no problem. Let me know what name you are going to use there (at that link) if you join ok?--Cubs197 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Kshatriya Komarpant

I have now replaced the 'speedy deletion' template with a 'possible copyright violation' template. This removes the content from view, but the article content actually is still there (if you edit the page). Once the OTRS permission has been processed, then - if it is OK - the OTRS ticket number will be added to this talk page, and the notice on the article will be removed. This may take several days, so please be patient.

Once the copyright status is sorted out, then we will see what happens; the article might still be deleted for other reasons, but we need to resolve this matter first.

 Chzz  ►  09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, works for me. I share your concern regarding the suitability of the article even without copyright issues, but let's give it a chance. Favonian (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Ratan Rajput

Hello Favonian, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Ratan Rajput - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 22:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, amazing how little it takes to pass for notable these days. Favonian (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Tuopuo

Hi Favonian, I am tuopuo.Please please donot delete my articles.You are a famous editor you should help new editors.Why u delete the articles.PIDE was not an external link.what are you doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuopuo (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tuopuo. I'm hardly famous, and more to the point: I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete articles, only nominate them for deletion. Regarding PIDE, you added a link to that article's "See also" section, even though the link had absolute nothing to do with the subject of the article, which is a secret police agency in Argentina. I did inadvertently issue a warning, which concerned external links, but realizing my mistake, I removed it again after two minutes. Sorry about that! Now, you seem to have another problem, namely the creation of inappropriate articles, which get deleted either speedily or after a discussion. As explained to you previously by another editor, you should take the time necessary to study the various guidelines. Favonian (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Hello Favonian, My intention was not to spam. The links i added were not spam either. I didnt use any bot to enter those links. They were legitimate links, that contain information about the artist. You can verify the links. I would appreciate if you let me re-add the links, you rolled back.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluejackal06 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a second opinion from an administrator. Favonian (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi Favonian, some guy named Orange Mike deleted my page and accused me of "self promotion" I am not the person I wrote about..and am dismayed at this introduction to Wiki. Would you be able to assist me in this matter? thanks in advance Sincerely77 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My only involvement thus far has been to nominate one of your three newly created articles for deletion due to a rather blatant copyright violation. That has since been rectified, but your editing record does rather hint at an connection with Breaking Records Music and its founder. That may be the reason for Orange Mike's concerns regarding conflict of interest, but I expect he will answer your question on his talk page. Favonian (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Can you help me please? I've listed an article for AfD, but its not showing up on Today's Log, its just really confusing. Could you show me the ropes of AfD's as this one needs to be speedy deleted? --Scythre (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:Hersfold beat me to it. Agree absolutely regarding the worthiness of the article. Favonian (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I use Twinkle for AfD and other administrative chores. Works like a charm. Favonian (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Benoit Grey CSD

Hey I just wanted to let you know I switched your CSD from copyright g12 to blatant advertising g11. The creator is claiming that he has the rights to repost the article from the website but from his comments and the look of the article it sure looks like a conflict of interest and meant solely to advertise him. Jamesofur (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. I certainly concur in your analysis of the article's purpose. Favonian (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the text and removed the advertising aspects of it. Let me know what else I can do to keep this article active. Thanks. Sarstarco (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy deletion tag, assuming that the copyright violation has been dealt with. (If not, then this article will soon disappear!) The article currently has no references to impartial, secondary sources, which could support the claim to notability. It's absolutely necessary that these be provided, if the article is to survive. Favonian (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bummer! An administrator lost patience with the copyright issue and deleted the article. Favonian (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya, bummer. Thanks for the info though. I'll work on those sources and try again. Sarstarco (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We definitely want to find some good sources for the article if we want to get it back up and make sure we have a copyright notice on it. I believe in order to be used here it'll have to be released into something compatible with Wikipedia's copyrights such as WP:GFDL or WP:CC-BY-SA. I also think given the delete's already it should probably be written outside of main space so that it can be relatively complete with notices etc before it's moved in. I'm going to put this info and a little more about how to do that etc. on Sarstarco's talk page I know I'm willing to help and try to get it up to par :) Jamesofur (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to chip in too. Based on Google he is sufficiently notable to merit a WP article. Favonian (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re. Information and communications technology academy

So there's no way to request speedy deletion even though it's clearly advertising and has no sources whatsoever? XXX antiuser 09:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been tempted and in fact did a search to see if there was a copyvio, but I couldn't find any. You might try the G11, blatant advert, but I've had little success with that in the past when it comes to educational institutions. Favonian (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and AfD'd it. The author hasn't done anything but repeatedly remove warning templates from the article. XXX antiuser 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed and cast my vote accordingly. Favonian (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whack a mole IP's at Kendra Todd

At Kendra Todd, looking at the history, all of the edits have been done by someone on Verizon Wireless which is a highly dynamic range. Although the IP you reported got blocked, I will bet he will be back on another IP in a short time. Someone requested page protection at WP:RPP already to stop these "whack a mole" IP's. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction, an admin already protected the page for 3 days. But even if the protection ends, the Verizon IP's may be back. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I bet you're right. Would appreciate a bit of page protection before develop arthritis from all that reverting. Favonian (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oops! Didn't leave a talkback notice! (It hasn't been reverted since, by the way) I dream of horses @ 01:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at Cpl Syx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Thought I'd make use of the already titled section!) --Cpl Syx (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vito cataffo

Hello Favonian, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Vito cataffo - a page you tagged - because: having a show on Channel Four is surely a claim of importance/significance. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 21:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In this day and age — absolutely. What a crummy article though. Guess we have to repair it. Favonian (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to remember that A7 is not about notability and that articles that pass A7's test can still be deleted using other venues with community input. A7 is just the lowest barrier to keep out all the stuff that is not even indicating any importance or significance (which as WP:CSD says is a lower standard than notability). You might want to simply use WP:PROD or WP:AFD in all those cases where importance or significance is indicated but where you do not think it passes WP:N. Regards SoWhy 08:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why I removed your stub temp

I removed the stub temp you added to the "Providence Church" article, because I think it gives enough information to be start-class. I don't think it really matters that the article has no references, or needs to be overhauled. Mind you, it probably needs more work than a good stub, but that's typical for a first article. However, edit mercilessly, critique mercifully, or in other words, revert it if you want. I won't revert it back. --I dream of horses 01:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wording

Though I agree with and much appreciate your correction to the article on Prince Carl Philip of Sweden, I was rather shocked to see some wording in your edit summary here. The prince's situation is quite complicated. It is possible isn't it that that user may have misunderstood? Maybe there is other evidence I don't know of that the user of that IP is a mcp? I'm sorry for not minding my own business in this case, but I have tried the hard way to learn to assume good faith, and I try very hard nowadays not to use any offensive, accusatory wording. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right, and I would have changed the comment if it were possible. Regarding this particular user, I can assure you that he was not in good faith. He has accumulated warnings regarding deliberate factual errors the last couple of days and is one short of a block. No reason to apologize :) Best, Favonian (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have looked a little closer and seen now that there have been serious problems with someone using that IP for the last few days. Hard to assume good faith. Perhaps a mental disorder? Thanx for your nice reply! SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ann Druyan Revert

Thank you very much for reinstating the Aschenbach-sourced material about Druyan's scientific interests before she met Sagan. Yours is the second revert of this material that I recall. I am very disappointed at how protective some "editors" (often anonymous) can be in protecting their heroes from the truth of their lives. Recently a cabal of editors (not anonymous) removed all mention of Velikovsky from "Popularization of Science" section of Carl Sagan's entry so that the scientific errors he made in criticizing Worlds in Collision would be suppressed. Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Seems that I spend a considerable part of my spare time undoing unsourced, unexplained edits by unnamed users :( Cheers, Favonian (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Crash!

Great minds think alike. Just as you were adding a prod to Anastasia Ganias, I was adding a prod for the same reasons. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

May the best PROD win :) Favonian (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Stan Brock

Thanks for your help with Stan Brock today! Patchen (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! He certainly seems worthy of an encyclopedia article — and to think that until today I had never heard of him. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dramaonly

Hi, Favonian! You are invited to participate in the Great Wikipedia Dramaonly, an effort to end arguments and discussions, and fight vandalism! It is intended to stop discussions from interfering everyone's work in the article namespace. Please sign up here! Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of World domination

The article World domination has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is strictly original research. No evidence is given that any of the real historical information is related to the topic of "world domination." No references are given for fictional "world domination", or that it has even been discussed in secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Why would you add these tags when this hasn't been proven. A banned IP only makes this claim and no one can prove that I am Anoshirawan who got banned a year ago. Please remove these tags.--Inuit18 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see now that the tags were added by an anonymous IP user, and I can't find any official sockpuppet investigation mentioning your user name, so feel free to remove them. Favonian (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Religious responses to ART

Please see Talk:Religious_response_to_ART#Removal_of_EL. Joe407 (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

your msg

sorry mate, the message was met for name change, as directed by wiki tell me then how i should request for name change, or you do it for me if you ve admin rights chees Knowledge is power! 13:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talk • contribs)

Go to the change username request page and follow the instructions. I'm not an administrator, so I can't do it for you. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary for Ruchira Gupta

Am a new user. There is no need for "slapping my wrist". Still learning the ropes.

Pallavy (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Pallavy

loch lomond lake

thanks for the help...new to this wiki thing, tried to copy the loch lomond lake in scotalnd info box, but couldn't figure out how to upload my picture for the lake as opposed to the one...anyways work in progress

thanks,

doug

Geejou (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright for Jonathan Javitch, M.D., Ph.D.

While I was in the process of posting this article, and adding a Wikipedia copyright approval notice to the talk page per the instructions of the Wikipedia editor who went over the copyright permission issues with me, you recommended the article for Speedy Deletion.

Now you seem to want me to do more. Why isn't what I did enough? Psychiatry777 (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC) {{permissionOTRS|ticket=https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=3427654}}

My bad, terribly sorry — I didn't see the talk page. First time I actually encounter someone who has made the effort to get the copyright issue in order. So rare, so rare. Favonian (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychiatry777 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Thanks for your reverts. William Avery (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. That's one persistent so-and-so. Favonian (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! [midnight comet] [talk] 13:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure :) A very persistent vandal, that one. Favonian (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thank you!

You are most welcome, and am sure you would do the same if it was my page :-) MaenK.A._Talk 12:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hai Favonian

What datas i have given is 100% right i wil also give reference for that please reconsider after i add reference.

Thank you Rajnwiki (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Favonian

Please reconsider the Article Sivaji Ganesan, i have added a reference from a valid and Famous Website http://www.dinakaran.com

http://www.dinakaran.com/cinema/english/biodata/sivaji.htm

Thank you, Rajnwiki (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for including a source this time. Whether this "valid and Famous" site is sufficiently reliable, I'll let others decide, but I have re-added the date of death, since the man is really quite dead. Favonian (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hey favonian, I'm new to wikipedia, but i have tried to write an article on a member of a band, but it says that it is nominated for speedy deletion. I have put 100% true information, and a decent amount of it so far. he is a new member, so there is not alot to say about his career currently. Please help(or don't delete my artcle)

If you don't know what article it is, it is here wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_De_Pasquale

Thank you, Nick De Pasquale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nant22 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to demonstrate that the musician in question is notable, specifically the article has to live up to the criteria described in this set of guidelines. An important part of this is providing reliable sources, and these do not include Facebook and MySpace. Finally, since you are evidently related to the subject of the article, you have a conflict of interest. Favonian (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Ireland article

Hey, I saw that my recent edit to the Manchester Ciy footballer Stephen Ireland was deleted as the post was believed to be libellous, this certainly isn't the case. I actually have first hand sources and individuals very close to the family who have relayed this information to me!

If they cannot be referenced, per WP:RS they are of no use in an encyclopedia article. Favonian (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi Crawford

please do not delete my pages as they are very valid. i am new to wikipedia, this is my first time adding anything, our organization is very valid and as i stated before on the talk page, if mine is deleted, then wikipedia will have to delete the other organizations which are already listed and same or similar in nature. i dont think wikipedia is allowed to use favoritism. also, one of the persons who put in for deletion i noticed on their page believes the world would be a better place without religion.....this feels rather personal and attacking in nature from teapotgeorge. what do you need me to send you to prove our organization is legit? we are a nonprofit training education (faith based) organization, which according to wiki rules speedy deletion does not even apply in the first place. i beleive you can view our credentials on the NC Secretary of State website. Atlantic Messianic Alliance of America. also shumenweb says i am being blocked? how so? i am only trying to post valid content. the rules of blocking dont apply according to wiki. everything i have posted is truth and valid content. Rabbi Crawford (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen all your articles, but the main problem seems to be that you fail to provide reliable sources to demonstrate that the various entities are notable. You also appear to be having problems describing the groups or persons in neutral terms, which has led to at least one of the articles being considered advertisement. Finally, I notice that you sign yourself "Rabbi Crawford", which is also the name of one of the articles. This indicates that you have a conflict of interest.

That other articles on Wikipedia fail to live up to the criteria just listed is regrettable, though not surprising in view of the total number of articles. It is not, however, an alibi for including additional ones.

You haven't been blocked, but you could very well be if, instead of paying attention to the messages you have received, you merely go on creating the same or similar articles. Favonian (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

how do you edit then without getting everyone mad? good grief! this seems like its impossible and a waste of time! how about helping instead of knocking people down?! i'm speaking of wiki in general. noone has offered help only deletions. i am new and i was trying to get content on there. would you like me to have someone else post it from their account and get the same message out?> how do you expect this to be done? Rabbi Crawford (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

seems like it would have been nicer to ask someone to edit instead of deleting- which it was deleted. i tried to redo it is all. and there was nothing negative. i am the president of an organization and noone else is currently authorized to do anything public wihtout approval through the president. so the organization is not owned by me- just watched over. there was no trying to sell anything- as one person put it on the deletion posting. Rabbi Crawford (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't say anything about selling. I assume this is the phrase you're thinking of: because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. It means, as I tried to explain above, that it is written too subjectively to be considered as an encyclopedia article; that it cannot be accepted in that form, and that it's back to the drawing board. When your response is unmodified repetition and assorted accusations of antisemitism, the whole thing escalates. Now, as I'm six timezones ahead of you, I'll take my leave of this discussion. Favonian (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "formulae"

Hi Favonian - just to make you aware, the user who seems to have a hatred for "ae" (maybe all things Latin... who knows?) is still responding on my userspace. I'm believe that I've got the issue covered with my reply, but if you feel like chipping in then please feel free! --Cpl Syx (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You've certainly done an impressive job researching the issue! Still, I can't resist the temptation of a good discussion, so I've added my two bits' worth. Favonian (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ali

Do you have knowledge of what you've denied me in my affair of editing the page ali ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawesalm (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I take your message to mean that you are the user who recently edited Ali as the anonymous 68.227.219.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Your contribution contained no reliable sources and furthermore was highly subjective and downright offensive. The last point refers specifically to your use of the word "perversion" to describe Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam. Favonian (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I ask my question more clear, do you know about the subject you are disputing on ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawesalm (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To give a clear answer: no, I'm no expert on Ali or his friends and foes. What I do know a fair bit about are the quality criteria which Wikipedia expects from its articles, and as I have tried to explain above, your edits leave much to be desired in that respect. If you cannot back your claims with sources, then they have no place here, and referring to Bahá'u'lláh (not Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam, as I erroneously wrote above) as guilty of "perversion" is not permissible, no matter what kind of expertise you may or may not possess. Favonian (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

hey are you rocognizing what your doing ?! interfering in matters not at all related to you and you have no knowledge of ! try not to act like a teacher cos we're not the student and do not interfere in things ive done here anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawesalm (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia there is no such thing as "matters not at all related to you" and "do not interfere in things ive done here anymore". There are a number of guidelines for articles, some of which I have tried to explain to you above. To that list should be added the rule that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. What knowledge about the subject of the article you may possess is irrelevant if you can't communicate it and back it with sources. So far your contributions have merely been disruptive, and I have therefore reverted them. Favonian (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rampton Hospital

As I work at Rampton Hospital ,I should know the facts ,do you not think?.Ramptonman (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If that is really true, and you reveal the new names of patients, you could be in considerable trouble. As it is, what you are doing appears to be a violation of Wikipedia's rules regarding information about living persons. Favonian (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that to protect the new identities of these offenders from their victims,the victim's family and the general public is permissable?.If so,what gives you the right?.You even deleted offfenders real names which is a matter of public record.Blocking me will only be a simple change of username and IP address.The truth shall not be witheld from the British public at any cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramptonman (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-existant infobox.

I checked "what links here" for the infobox and picked up a few others. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

Blocked

How long will i be blocked for.

Evidently, you're no longer blocked. Favonian (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Favonian! The first week of each monthly cycle of "Wikipedian of the..." will consist of repeats from the previous month; the repeats did not received WOTW last month.
For your further kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user since the last time you were Wikipedian of the Day, you have been named "Wikipedian of the Day" once again, for today, August 31, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You now have another chance to be Wikipedian of the Week!

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)